Forum:BFF Rules and Policies
THIS DISCUSSION IS COMPLETE. SEE BFF Rules Revision FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. Discussion Area Let's clear all of this up. I am sick of what's going on, exemplified on the Zangetsu (Shadow Rage) talk page. Treating new people like this is top-notch elitist and it prevents the community from growing. This stuff needs to be clearly stated, especially in regards to canon content being fanonized. You either let everyone or no one create canon content. Otherwise, you'll come across as a complete douchebag, as the anonymous individual pointed out. But the point is setting everything out in the open so that this does not happen again. If it isn't clear enough, I am not happy about this whole ordeal. I am actually furious to the point that I mistaken what's being displayed on the history pages as I look and make sure that all voices were being hard over this issue (sorry Achrones). I want the rules and policies to be set in stone and not prone to future edits without consensus. I've seen and heard admins manipulate the rules for their own agenda. This needs to stop right now. In short, this needs to CHANGE (that's right, you Nobamas). --[[User:LaviBookman|'れび']] (talk to Lavi!) 17:48, October 16, 2010 (UTC) : Lavi, I couldn't agree with you more (except for the Obama reference of course). I think if we were to act like SWF and allow canon characters, that would be fine. You're correct that the rules have been manipulated for admin preferences, which is why NF has turned into a dung hole and why I won't be returning there. We have policies that are set in stone, but the majority of users (admins included) totally refuse to obey them. And any one here that claims not to have seen them is uttering a load of crap because their is a link on the main page. When we do bring up the need to follow rules, we get a whole argument over restricting freedom and I'm about sick of it. What's worse is that admins claim to agree with us every time this happens and then they go along their merry way ignoring the rules. Well, I suggested this earlier and I'm about to say we should just go forward with it; Admins must be held to higher standards, and if they don't do their job, then they don't deserve to be admins. Enough promoting our user friends to admin just to be nice. I admit I'm guilty of that one, but no more. Admins who refuse to follow the rules are to be demoted, as are admins who refuse to take part in discussions on this wiki, NOT on the chat. We're running a wiki here people, not Facebook. :Now, that aside, I'm not saying we can't all be friends here and get along, but it's time we get some structure. # Canon characters are allowed for references and personal fanfictions only. Everything that has been done up to this point can remain, but no more after this. # Its time for admins to get involved in projects and do more than ban people and delete articles; Admins are the leaders of the wiki; any wiki. Don't give me the bs that all users are equal crap. This isn't the constitution, this is a wiki website. Admins need to act like leaders and not take any backtalk from users. As long as an admin sticks to the rules of the wiki they are not wrong no matter what they say so don't argue with them. If you are wrongly accused or punished by an admin, the other administration will act to punish the rouge admin and make sure you are happily on your way, but you as a user need to respect the admins just as you would on any other site. :Doing these things should make the site run smoother and clear up a lot of misconceptions about our admins and policies. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 21:17, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::I totally agree. We as the administration needs to lead the Wikia instead of being like how Aki was on NF back when I started there. We need to stabilize the rules and make them unchangeable so that no user can change them to fit their uses (glares at a certain user). And my feeling on the Canon article Fanonization has been strong going back to when I started on the fanon they are canon characters for a reason, and donot need to be used as Fanon main characters, I understand that they exist in Fanfictions but they do not need to be used in things like a Fanon Site Wide Canon. I know that Ichigo Kurosaki is being used in the The World Court Saga (Which I frown on) but can this be the final time a canon character is used in a mainstream story on Bleach Fan Fiction?-- 楽しい Vui (吐露) 21:30, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::: I would agree with that. Canon characters don't need to be used in canons and roleplays, so this will be the last arc that happens in. That aside, I'm not waiting for this topic to be ignored anymore. Any admins who don't vote on this by Monday, October 18th by 12:00 am Central Time will not have their voices heard on this issue. The voting is below. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 21:45, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :: Before I provide my vote, I want to clarify a point: in voting in support, you are agreeing that action must be taken in regards to determining rules and policies and that discussion must begin regarding it once it has been decided on. The date should not be Monday at Central Time's midnight: that's 7:00pm Sunday EST (which is 24 hours from now). Tuesday at the said time should be sufficient time for admins that are busy this weekend to respond. Also, if you do not participate in the discussion to solidify the rules and policies, you are neglecting admin duties and that would be grounds for removal of admin privileges. :: On another note, admins might be supposed to act as leaders, but that does not mean admins are to act superior to others. That's not being an admin: that's being an asshole. I hope we are all mature enough to not be assholes. --[[User:LaviBookman|'れび']] (talk to Lavi!) 22:28, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :::I concur, Lavi. :::And pardon me of my ignorance, but what do you mean by "mainstream story"? --Senkaku, the Lost Prodigy (My Personal Character | My Talk Page) 22:30, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::I HIGHLY agree! Admins need to be held to standard and there can't be such a divide between what admins & regular users are allowed to do in creating fiction here. I also think it's important not just for users to respect admins but also for admins to be respectful to users. If admins insist something of users (ie. changes, page deletion etc) then they must give a clear and detailed explanation for it. Not just "It's poor quality" (or something along those lines) but "Your Zanpakuto's abilities are too all over the map. All a Zanpakuto's abilities must have a connecting theme to them ..." Also if a user does talk back rudely to an admin then the admin still must be professional and state his/her (... with me I think being the only "her" admin) case and/or what is going to happen as a result of the rudeness. Obviously users shouldn't be rude to admins about their rulings, but I think it's only far that a users be allowed to state their case to the admin (so long as they are polite about it) or contend the judgment. Finally if a user thinks an admin is being unfair then they should be allowed to get the opinion of ONE another admin of their choice. ::-- Tsukiyume *w* (talk | character) 23:31, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :::PS Midterms done Wednesday so after that I shall be more active once again here. ::: I'm with you on that one Haruko. I agree that admins shouldn't be butts to users, but in my experience (at least on NF) the users acted as if the admins owed them something, and that severely pissed me off. Just look at their site notice over there. I agree though, there should be mutual respect regarding all users. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 23:58, October 16, 2010 (UTC) Well, the thing is, I just dislike how we're unable to hold a wikia to have personal limitations; an unverbal agreement between users (including Admins) to using a certain amount of a particular topic. But, seeing as we apparently can't, I guess we do need to stick to this ultimatum method. I have to agree with Ten most of all. Many users, here and on NF, feel as if Admins are nothing more than a Junior would be to a Sophomore. I'm not saying it should be a bannable offense, but it should contrubute to a warning system. Would everybody be in favor of a system of how acting smug to admins will end with bans; say, three offenses will be a ban? First time will be a polite warning, second time can be a little more agressive, and last, is ban. Also, it isn't a matter of being an asshole. Sometimes, the truth will only come out of an asshole's mouth, because they speak their mind, despite those who would get offended. Anyways, I'm running off topic, lol. Last, to the dude who posted earlier. This is for Admins to discuss, not regular users. And, for those who wish to go to the history to see the guy before me's messaage, this is what I'm talking about. Admins may not be perfect, but last thing I want is some guy with less experience in this position telling me how to act. Next thing you know, Aha's gonna tell me how to behave >_> And for the record, Obama can just GTFO <_< --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity | Talk to Me :3) 05:45, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :First, in a mass community you can't expect people to follow non-existent rules. It is necessary for everything to be written out, no matter how trivial or obvious it may seem. Second, at no time should admins act aggressive towards any users. Firm is okay but most certainly not aggressive. That kind of behaviour is what usually leads to simple problems here getting out of hand and users getting banned and structure breaking down. Third, as admins, when dealing with users have to act in the interests of the site & not our own personal feelings. It is our job to mediate and thus we must be understanding towards the users here. Finally, so what if he has less experience on this wiki than you Sei, I have found that means very little here. There are new users here that are mature, articulate and creative, producing better work than people who have been here for years (Sei, you yourself gave an example of such a case). Though I can understand that this page wasn't the pace to voice his opinions, it is important that all users have a voice and are able to communicate their concerns and feelings and even more so that we listen to all of them and actually consider what they say and not dismiss them. :-- Tsukiyume *w* (talk | character) 14:36, October 17, 2010 (UTC) : I moved what Illuminate Void said to the talk page so that others can see what he said. When I say admins should be leaders, I'm not talking about dictators. We don't need a Wiki Hitler. What I mean is that they should set the standard for the other users, but be strong in their leadership. We should let other users know that as long as they abide by the rules, we're here to protect their interests; not go against them. I think that's something we've all forgotten (myself included). We're here to protect our users and their articles from vandals, to strive to improve content on the site, and to strengthen the community. Admins are not meant to be the political elite (yes that was a retort to Lavi's Obama reference LOL) on a wiki. We weren't give our admin powers to bend the site to our will, but rather to bend it to our fellow user's wills. Admins do have a list of duties on Bleach Fan Fiction Wiki:User Rights. I suggest you all go over them as I did yesterday. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 14:16, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :: I also want to mention that we have set rules, that are written out at Bleach Fan Fiction Wiki:Policy. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 16:48, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :: As long as the Admins don't abuse power, I'm fine. What I'm saying is that they don't treat the rest of the newbs or non-admins as crap. I don't mind if you guys treat us like non-equals but don't treat us like crap, after all that's what defines a wiki. A mass community producing quality work together. ~ Everyone's Favorite Darkest Ninja (My Entity|Main Character) 18:06, October 17, 2010 (UTC) ::I'd give my own retort to the "political elite" side note, but that is an unnecessary side discussion. I'm iffy about having a system centered around dealing with those that talk back to admins because some complaints have some genuine feedback about how that admin acts/behaves. An administration is supposed to cater to the community, not itself. If this gets implemented, I would want a section where members could voice his or her complaints regarding an admin without risking warning/block/ban. This is not perfect, of course, but it gives some semblance of we-listen-to-our-members, which is part of what an administration is supposed to do. (btw, I totally read the time zone that Ten mentioned earlier wrong) ::And Ten, the list of policies and stuff that were written out were written out by a single individual. This would be fine if the wiki was on Day 1. But we've been at this for well over a year. It's about time that the rules are more refined based on the community needs rather than what a person thinks the wiki needs. Everything needs to be looked over, plus there are some rules and policies that are set by Wikia that must also be followed, regardless of whether it's mentioned in our rules/policies or not. --[[User:LaviBookman|'れび']] (talk to Lavi!) 18:22, October 17, 2010 (UTC) ::: I agree, though I was only putting the rule list out there just so people knew we had one. We can refine them and add to them after this discussion ends. I'm not so much for putting an actual system in for back talk to admins. Unless they are outright personal attacks and the user is refusing follow the rules. Other than that, Admins should be mature enough to deal with a sassy user. I mean look how long we've all been dealing with Aha. ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 18:36, October 17, 2010 (UTC) Ok, my take on this entire thing is this: I've never known any group of people who needs this much bickering to get in order. I know I am guilty of this too, but this entire wikia at times acts like kids. We all disagree and have our own takes on stuff, and there's always arguments. I am usually against stringent rules, because I like to let people try stuff, but as it seems like judgment is too varied, I think people are right and we need a set of rules that everyone reads, everyone checks, and everyone follows. Also, I know this has been proposed a lot and may even have been passed before, but is never really enforced, so I would like to propose that we make a system where one admin flags something, and then two others have to put their approval to it before it is considered actually flagged, to prevent one person's skewed take on something destroying an article. Some things, like canon characters and such, are easy to tell, but other things might not be as clear-cut, and would need several admins to check. I also think that, as happens sometimes, stuff that isn't against the current rules but is definitely not good for our site may show up. I think that whenever something that is within the rules but seems like it shouldn't be shows up, we need to actually figure out what's wrong, and alter the rules to exclude whatever is the issue in it, rather than simply deleting it on the grounds of "No. Just no." as we are wont to do. I think we could make new templates/categories, since the old deletion categories are full of billions of ancient stuff, and would take forever to drag through to check, and have the templates have a spot for other admins to sign, so that nothing is acted upon until three admins have agreed on it. --The Raven Master 22:43, October 17, 2010 (UTC) I have gone ahead and created the template I suggest we use, so that admins may see what I meant, as I think I might have been a bit unclear. Template:Delete. If the idea is vote down, it will of course be deleted, and if people have ideas to change it or issues with the idea, please mention them. --The Raven Master 23:37, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :Surprise, surprise: it's Thursday. What have we done? Nothing. Get off your asses. --[[User:LaviBookman|'れび']] (talk to Lavi!) 14:36, October 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Well as I understand, then main thing we need to do is decided on an updated set of rules and policies (as is obvious by the page title). So in order to start this process how about we make a new section here with various headings on the types of rules/policies we will be making (eg. banning, articles, general behaviour etc.) and then we place our suggestions for rule/policies under them. We can then make comments on them and say what we want changed about them. -- Tsukiyume *w* (talk | character) 16:32, October 21, 2010 (UTC) ::We are in the discussion right now in this section. Make your voice heard! ^^ --[[User:LaviBookman|'れび']] (talk to Lavi!) 21:34, October 21, 2010 (UTC) Voting Section Rules for voting You may only vote once on this issue. Once you vote, you may NOT change it. The History will be watched. Do not state your reason why, simply put the symbol of your decision and your signature and leave it at that. Discussion is for the discussion section above. If you support the notion placed above in User:LaviBookman's first post, as well as the two points set forth in User:Ten Tailed Fox's first post, place it under support. If you oppose, do so under oppose. Votes Support # ---'Ten Tailed Fox' talk page 21:46, October 16, 2010 (UTC) # --- 楽しい Vui (吐露) 22:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC) # --Seireitou-shishō (My True Identity | Talk to Me :3) 22:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC) # --Senkaku, the Lost Prodigy (My Personal Character | My Talk Page) 22:24, October 16, 2010 (UTC) # --- Tsukiyume *w* (talk | character) 22:53, October 16, 2010 (UTC) # --[[User:LaviBookman|'れび']] (talk to Lavi!) 23:36, October 16, 2010 (UTC) # --- --The Raven Master 22:43, October 17, 2010 (UTC) Oppose